Services

Bloxham villagers oppose homes plan

MORE than 60 people have objected to plans for 75 homes in Bloxham, saying it would damage the village’s character and put too much pressure on roads.

Gladman Developments has applied to build the homes at land south of St Christophers Lodge off Barford Road. Cherwell District Council
will make a final decision.

Gascoigne Way resident Jennifer Kane told the council: “This is a clear case of over-development and further diminution of the rural areas within the village.”

Stone Hill resident Jennifer Hall claimed there was no demand for new homes.

But the developer said the plans would help the council meet Government housing targets, which it is currently missing. It said: “Bloxham has been identified as one of the most sustainable villages
in the district where new development is appropriate.”

Comments

Rural areas within the village - means what? I thought a village was in a rural area.

Most sustainable village means what?

Assertion of no demand for homes - that's NIMBY-ism.

What's the character of Bloxham? Raspberry, with a hint of...

Specious jargon and assertions
Rural areas within the village - means what? I thought a village was in a rural area.
Most sustainable village means what?
Assertion of no demand for homes - that's NIMBY-ism.
What's the character of Bloxham? Raspberry, with a hint of...Simon33

Specious jargon and assertions

Rural areas within the village - means what? I thought a village was in a rural area.

Most sustainable village means what?

Assertion of no demand for homes - that's NIMBY-ism.

What's the character of Bloxham? Raspberry, with a hint of...

Score: -2

John Groves
1:10am Sat 4 Aug 12

The issue is definitely not one of NIMBYism. Bloxham has accommodated 70% of the affordable homes recently built in villages within a five mile radius and during the last couple of years it has seen a 15% expansion with construction of more than double the target number of houses in the draft local plan (191 instead of 83.)
This was all received with a very English, “Mustn’t grumble” response and the reward for having not kicked up a fuss seems to be that we are seen as 'a soft touch' by developers trying to fill their pockets and by councils seeking to tick boxes showing they have met central government targets.
The prospect of having the third large urban style estate in three years plonked into our beautiful rural setting is what has galvanised a response. This definitely hasn't come just from those living near the proposed development nor has it come from just 60 people as the CDC website already has over 200 written objections. People all over the village (and beyond) are incensed at what they see as the collection of half-truths being plied to facilitate an inappropriate development that will further erode the rural character of the village and stretch our essentially unchanging infrastructure beyond reasonable limits.
We understand there is a regional demand for homes and have already demonstrated our willingness to shoulder more than our fair share of that responsibility. Failing to also erect a sign saying, “Welcome - we are open to constant and unlimited exploitation” is not my idea of NIMBYism!

The issue is definitely not one of NIMBYism. Bloxham has accommodated 70% of the affordable homes recently built in villages within a five mile radius and during the last couple of years it has seen a 15% expansion with construction of more than double the target number of houses in the draft local plan (191 instead of 83.)
This was all received with a very English, “Mustn’t grumble” response and the reward for having not kicked up a fuss seems to be that we are seen as 'a soft touch' by developers trying to fill their pockets and by councils seeking to tick boxes showing they have met central government targets.
The prospect of having the third large urban style estate in three years plonked into our beautiful rural setting is what has galvanised a response. This definitely hasn't come just from those living near the proposed development nor has it come from just 60 people as the CDC website already has over 200 written objections. People all over the village (and beyond) are incensed at what they see as the collection of half-truths being plied to facilitate an inappropriate development that will further erode the rural character of the village and stretch our essentially unchanging infrastructure beyond reasonable limits.
We understand there is a regional demand for homes and have already demonstrated our willingness to shoulder more than our fair share of that responsibility. Failing to also erect a sign saying, “Welcome - we are open to constant and unlimited exploitation” is not my idea of NIMBYism!John Groves

The issue is definitely not one of NIMBYism. Bloxham has accommodated 70% of the affordable homes recently built in villages within a five mile radius and during the last couple of years it has seen a 15% expansion with construction of more than double the target number of houses in the draft local plan (191 instead of 83.)
This was all received with a very English, “Mustn’t grumble” response and the reward for having not kicked up a fuss seems to be that we are seen as 'a soft touch' by developers trying to fill their pockets and by councils seeking to tick boxes showing they have met central government targets.
The prospect of having the third large urban style estate in three years plonked into our beautiful rural setting is what has galvanised a response. This definitely hasn't come just from those living near the proposed development nor has it come from just 60 people as the CDC website already has over 200 written objections. People all over the village (and beyond) are incensed at what they see as the collection of half-truths being plied to facilitate an inappropriate development that will further erode the rural character of the village and stretch our essentially unchanging infrastructure beyond reasonable limits.
We understand there is a regional demand for homes and have already demonstrated our willingness to shoulder more than our fair share of that responsibility. Failing to also erect a sign saying, “Welcome - we are open to constant and unlimited exploitation” is not my idea of NIMBYism!

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here